Zambernardi, Lorenzo
2016.
Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: A critique of the theory–policy nexus in International Relations.
European Journal of International Relations,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 1,
p.
3.

Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions

This article defines, operationalizes, and illustrates the value of analytic eclecticism in the social sciences, with a focus on the fields of comparative politics and international relations. Analytic eclecticism is not an alternative model of research or a means to displace or subsume existing modes of scholarship. It is an intellectual stance that supports efforts to complement, engage, and selectively utilize theoretical constructs embedded in contending research traditions to build complex arguments that bear on substantive problems of interest to both scholars and practitioners. Eclectic scholarship is marked by three general features. First, it is consistent with an ethos of pragmatism in seeking engagement with the world of policy and practice, downplaying unresolvable metaphysical divides and presumptions of incommensurability and encouraging a conception of inquiry marked by practical engagement, inclusive dialogue, and a spirit of fallibilism. Second, it formulates problems that are wider in scope than the more narrowly delimited problems posed by adherents of research traditions; as such, eclectic inquiry takes on problems that more closely approximate the messiness and complexity of concrete dilemmas facing “real world” actors. Third, in exploring these problems, eclectic approaches offer complex causal stories that extricate, translate, and selectively recombine analytic components—most notably, causal mechanisms—from explanatory theories, models, and narratives embedded in competing research traditions. The article includes a brief sampling of studies that illustrate the combinatorial potential of analytic eclecticism as an intellectual exercise as well as its value in enhancing the possibilities of fruitful dialogue and pragmatic engagement within and beyond the academe.

Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton.

Ahmed, Amel, and Sil, Rudra. 2009. “Is Multi-Method Research Really Better?” Contribution to Symposium on “Cautionary Perspectives on Multi-Method Research.” Newsletter of the Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Section of the American Political Science Association7(2): 2–6.

Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Baxandall, Phineas. 2004. Constructing Unemployment: The Politics of Joblessness in East and West. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Benford, Robert, and Snow, David. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–39.

Haas, Ernst B., and Haas, Peter M.. 2009. “Pragmatic Constructivism and the Study of International Institutions.” In Pragmatism in International Relations, eds. Bauer, Harry and Brighi, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.

Hall, Peter. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, Peter, and Taylor, Rosemary. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies44(5): 936–57.

Hedström, Peter, and Swedberg, Richard. 1998a. “Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, eds. Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hedström, Peter, and Swedberg, Richard, eds. 1998b. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaag, John Jacob. 2009. “Pragmatism and the Lessons of Experience.” Daedalus (Spring): 63–72.

Katzenstein, Peter J.1995. Contribution to “The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics: A Symposium.”World Politics48(1): 10–15.

Katzenstein, Peter J., and Sil, Rudra. 2008. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, eds. Rues-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katzenstein, Peter J., and Sil, Rudra. 2004. “Rethinking Security in East Asia: A Case for Analytic Eclecticism.” In Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power and Efficiency, eds. Suh, J.J., Katzenstein, Peter J., and Carlson, Allen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Knight, Jack, and Ensminger, Jean. 1998. “Conflict over Changing Social Norms.” In The New Institutionalism in Economic Sociology, eds. Nee, Victor and Brinton, Mary. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Knight, Jack, and Johnson, James. 1999. “Inquiry into Democracy: What Might a Pragmatist Make of Rational Choice Theories?” American Journal of Political Science43(2): 566–89.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuran, Timur. 1998. “Social Mechanisms of Dissonance Reduction.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, eds. Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification, and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meilleur, Maurice. 2005. “After Methodology: Toward a Profession of Political Science.” In Perestroika: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rule, James. 1997. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson, Stephen. 1987. “Eclecticism and Its Alternatives.” Current Perspectives in Social Theory8: 313–45.

Schelling, Thomas. 1998. “Social Mechanisms and Social Dynamics.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, eds. Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, Vivien. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science11: 303–26.

Schram, Sanford. 2005. “A Return to Politics: Perestroika, Phronesis, and Post-Paradigmatic Political Science.” In Perestroika: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schwartz, Herman. 2007. “Dependency or Institutions? Economic Geography, Causal Mechanisms, and Logic in the Understanding of Development.” Studies in Comparative International Development42(2): 115–35.

Sil, Rudra. 2000a. “The Foundations of Eclecticism: The Epistemological Status of Agency, Culture, and Structure in Social Theory.” The Journal of Theoretical Politics12(3): 353–87.

Sil, Rudra. 2000b. “The Questionable Status of Boundaries: The Need for Integration.” In Beyond Boundaries? Disciplines, Paradigms, and Theoretical Integration in International Studies, eds. Sil, Rudra and Doherty, Eileen M.. Albany: State University of New York Press.